The Premier Online Community for Real Estate Appraisers!
-
Welcome to AppraisersForum.com, the premier online
community for the discussion of real estate appraisal. Register a free account to be able to post and unlock additional forums and features.
Another Impossible Request - From an AMC of course
- Thread starter Riick
- Start date
- Status
Riick
Elite Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Delaware
I tried to be as clear as possible:
"Receipt for a new roof w/warranty was supplied."
That means a new roof was installed, and paid for, and it has a written warranty.
"The electrician's Certification just arrived"
And it appears valid; I say appears, since last one had no business address,
nor any liscense number. ---This one has all that and even a date of inspection.
So... back to the question I posed:
Are there any other options, aside from a new inspection and a new report?
"Receipt for a new roof w/warranty was supplied."
That means a new roof was installed, and paid for, and it has a written warranty.
"The electrician's Certification just arrived"
And it appears valid; I say appears, since last one had no business address,
nor any liscense number. ---This one has all that and even a date of inspection.
So... back to the question I posed:
Are there any other options, aside from a new inspection and a new report?
I see only one option. Re-do the report and apologize for doing in wrong the first time.
Mr Rex
Elite Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2004
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- North Carolina
The Roof and the Electrical could have been CB4, and you are out of the loop.
REL on a roof is a bunch of hooey, especially from an Appraiser on the ground or a roofer in need of a job. Residential roofs (shingles) don't leak through the shingles, they leak around the flashings in almost all cases unless the shingles are far beyond worn out (not what an appraiser thinks of as <2 years.):new_smile-l:
TJSum
Elite Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Maryland
"Are there any other options, aside from a new inspection and a new report?"
You do not have that option either, when doing an FHA appraisal, it is good for six months. The whole mess started when you got that advice from the HOC person, was this in writing?
I am not picking on you, but your post above points out why appraisers should not involve themselves with certification letters, that is the UW responsiblity, not ours. (Are you going to check the persons license number to see if it matches with the State, are they in good standing, etc. That is all the UW job, don't take on that liability unless you like to play Russian Roulette).
You do not have that option either, when doing an FHA appraisal, it is good for six months. The whole mess started when you got that advice from the HOC person, was this in writing?
I am not picking on you, but your post above points out why appraisers should not involve themselves with certification letters, that is the UW responsiblity, not ours. (Are you going to check the persons license number to see if it matches with the State, are they in good standing, etc. That is all the UW job, don't take on that liability unless you like to play Russian Roulette).
Last edited:
jtinmichigan
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2008
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Michigan
Sorry, just misunderstood, you said that when you went back out cosmetic items were completed, I took this to mean the roof hadn't been done the last time you looked at the house.
I don't see any other viable alternative to new inspection, new date, new assignment.
I don't see any other viable alternative to new inspection, new date, new assignment.
And as Mr. Rex said " FHA protocol trumps "client" desires."
The original report was simply wrong. Had you given the as-repaird value, then the UW could review the certs and let the loan fly.
Marcia Langley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Missouri
Riick,
I agree with the others that checking the "as is" box in the reconciliation section is an unacceptable assignment condition when it conflicts with the client's other instruction to adhere to a set of published guidelines, in this case, FHA.
Your original report was in error because you did not check the box that indicated the HC, "my opinion of value is subject to change if these repairs are never completed" or the EA, "my opinion of value is subject to these inspections". Yet you went on to condition for these repairs/inspections in the comments section.
If you check the "as is" box, you can't condition for repairs or inspections. If you condition for repairs or inspections, you have to check box 3 or 4.
Appraisers should never call for or require repairs unless their opinion of value is subject to their completion.
In your case, your opinion of value was not subject to the completion of any repairs. When you called the HOC, the question you should have asked was whether the deficiencies you observed could be catagorized as cosmetic or whether you should make your opinion of value subject to repair or inspection. If their answer is, "what you have described is categorized as cosmetic" then you were out of line calling for repairs or inspections.
In the FHA guidelines the term "cosmetic" means that the deficiency does not rise to the level of conditioning your opinion of value on repairs or inspections.
===========
Since you original report was in error and the repairs/inspections were actually required by you and accomplished by the homeowner, the current problem is your fault. There are ways to fix the problem.
The first problem is how to correct your original appraisal that was in error. The preferred way would be to change the check boxes to match whatever repairs/inspections you required and delete the term "cosmetic" from your comments as it relates to those items and change your opinion of value to "as repaired". In your comments, be sure to clearly separate all items between the three catagories, cosmetic, subject to repair, and subject to inspection.
This is exactly how you should have done it in the first place. It is a correction of error. (If you had not called for repairs/inspections due to the fact that the deficiencies were truly cosmetic, that would have been correct but there's no way to un-call for those repairs/inspections now that they are complete.)
Once that is done, your only remaining responsibility is the FHA repair completion report. You will not address the inspections by other experts associated with CB4. Those inspection reports go directly to the client and are no business of yours. Commenting on them in any way may open you to liability that properly belongs with those other experts.
You said the appraisal had not been logged in to FHA, yet. Whether it had or had not, your responsibility to correct your original appraisal would remain.
==============
Since the client told the borrower to complete the repairs and inspections, it is clear that they did not truly require an "as is" opinion of value. So why did they ask for it? The only reason a client would ask for this when it is in conflict with their other requirements (GSE or FHA guidelines) is to pressure the appraiser into failing to report minimum property standard defficiencies properly.
Beware the client that gives you conflicting instructions.
.
I agree with the others that checking the "as is" box in the reconciliation section is an unacceptable assignment condition when it conflicts with the client's other instruction to adhere to a set of published guidelines, in this case, FHA.
Your original report was in error because you did not check the box that indicated the HC, "my opinion of value is subject to change if these repairs are never completed" or the EA, "my opinion of value is subject to these inspections". Yet you went on to condition for these repairs/inspections in the comments section.
If you check the "as is" box, you can't condition for repairs or inspections. If you condition for repairs or inspections, you have to check box 3 or 4.
Appraisers should never call for or require repairs unless their opinion of value is subject to their completion.
In your case, your opinion of value was not subject to the completion of any repairs. When you called the HOC, the question you should have asked was whether the deficiencies you observed could be catagorized as cosmetic or whether you should make your opinion of value subject to repair or inspection. If their answer is, "what you have described is categorized as cosmetic" then you were out of line calling for repairs or inspections.
In the FHA guidelines the term "cosmetic" means that the deficiency does not rise to the level of conditioning your opinion of value on repairs or inspections.
===========
Since you original report was in error and the repairs/inspections were actually required by you and accomplished by the homeowner, the current problem is your fault. There are ways to fix the problem.
The first problem is how to correct your original appraisal that was in error. The preferred way would be to change the check boxes to match whatever repairs/inspections you required and delete the term "cosmetic" from your comments as it relates to those items and change your opinion of value to "as repaired". In your comments, be sure to clearly separate all items between the three catagories, cosmetic, subject to repair, and subject to inspection.
This is exactly how you should have done it in the first place. It is a correction of error. (If you had not called for repairs/inspections due to the fact that the deficiencies were truly cosmetic, that would have been correct but there's no way to un-call for those repairs/inspections now that they are complete.)
Once that is done, your only remaining responsibility is the FHA repair completion report. You will not address the inspections by other experts associated with CB4. Those inspection reports go directly to the client and are no business of yours. Commenting on them in any way may open you to liability that properly belongs with those other experts.
You said the appraisal had not been logged in to FHA, yet. Whether it had or had not, your responsibility to correct your original appraisal would remain.
==============
Since the client told the borrower to complete the repairs and inspections, it is clear that they did not truly require an "as is" opinion of value. So why did they ask for it? The only reason a client would ask for this when it is in conflict with their other requirements (GSE or FHA guidelines) is to pressure the appraiser into failing to report minimum property standard defficiencies properly.
Beware the client that gives you conflicting instructions.
.
Last edited:
Riick, you need to learn how to stand your ground when you have the ethical compulsion to do so under the regulations for which you conduct appraisals.
This is a clear case of the AMC either not knowing or not wanting to deal with FHA requirements. FHA requires that appraisals where problems are noted during inspection that affect the safety and soundness of the dwelling be made subject to repairs and/or inspection.
You should have never tried to accommodate your client in this case. This is exactly why I don't call service lines for FHA, my state regulators, zoning, etc, etc, etc for answers to my questions. Sure, they'll give you an answer. But, it doesn't mean it's right. More times than not it's dead wrong. And it's your *** left hanging in the wind. If you're going to call a virtually anonymous person and ask such questions also make sure to ask if you can get the answer in writing signed by an "authority" and/or ask them to point out the exact regulation stating as much. If they say they don't know, then they don't really know the answer. If they state they'll have to get back to you with it, don't hold your breath waiting.
This is a clear case of the AMC either not knowing or not wanting to deal with FHA requirements. FHA requires that appraisals where problems are noted during inspection that affect the safety and soundness of the dwelling be made subject to repairs and/or inspection.
You should have never tried to accommodate your client in this case. This is exactly why I don't call service lines for FHA, my state regulators, zoning, etc, etc, etc for answers to my questions. Sure, they'll give you an answer. But, it doesn't mean it's right. More times than not it's dead wrong. And it's your *** left hanging in the wind. If you're going to call a virtually anonymous person and ask such questions also make sure to ask if you can get the answer in writing signed by an "authority" and/or ask them to point out the exact regulation stating as much. If they say they don't know, then they don't really know the answer. If they state they'll have to get back to you with it, don't hold your breath waiting.
TJSum
Elite Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Professional Status
- Certified Residential Appraiser
- State
- Maryland
Riick, Marcia nails it again, as usual, your best route would be to correct the original report. Also make sure you explain the corrected report in case FHA and/or the State ends up with both versions. The second report needs to explain why changes were made.
Also, CWD made some good points. We often times hear surveys done by the IRS, when taxpayers call their help lines and approximately receive incorrect advise almost 50% of the time from the IRS employees. Like CWD said, get all answers in writing for your file, or else have them point out to you where the answer is found in writing within the regs.
Hey, I thought the AMC was supposed to be "the firewall" to protect the Public Trust.... Sorry for the editorial comment, good luck !
Also, CWD made some good points. We often times hear surveys done by the IRS, when taxpayers call their help lines and approximately receive incorrect advise almost 50% of the time from the IRS employees. Like CWD said, get all answers in writing for your file, or else have them point out to you where the answer is found in writing within the regs.
Hey, I thought the AMC was supposed to be "the firewall" to protect the Public Trust.... Sorry for the editorial comment, good luck !
- Status